Bug 734582
Summary: | Means to avoid wrecking /usr/local permissions on upgrade | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matt McCutchen <matt> |
Component: | filesystem | Assignee: | Ondrej Vasik <ovasik> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 15 | CC: | ovasik |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2011-08-31 07:28:41 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Matt McCutchen
2011-08-30 19:44:54 UTC
Thanks for suggestion, but there is not much to do in that case in filesystem rpm. To prevent these issues in released Fedoras, I do not update filesystem package there... doing changes only in Rawhide... F15 was a bit special, because there was a VERY late request for changes required for systemd. As for your suggestions - %config() macro in spec file is only for files - not for directories - and it's behaviour for directories is at the best undefined. I don't like the idea of subpackage - because it will be necessary to require it by "primary" filesystem package - so there will be not a big benefit from it (unless you plan to exclude it from updates). In addition, doing such split would mean similar requests for other filesystem directories... So - as a workaround - I suggest you to use rpm -U --excludepath=<path> - if done as an alias, it is easy to use and will work for other packages as well... other way is to propose a request for enhancement in rpm upstream tracker (http://rpm.org/newticket ). Closing that one NOTABUG... sorry ... if you want to reopen it, please do so as RFE against rpm. (In reply to comment #1) > %config() macro in spec file is only for files - not for directories - and it's > behaviour for directories is at the best undefined. Extending the semantics of %config to file attributes (and allowing its use on directories) seems like an appropriate solution. I will file a RFE with rpm upstream. I would not be at all surprised if they decline, but maybe they will suggest an alternative. > I don't like the idea of > subpackage - because it will be necessary to require it by "primary" filesystem > package - so there will be not a big benefit from it (unless you plan to > exclude it from updates). You're right. What would be needed is to move the distro-managed content into a subpackage as well and convert "filesystem" to a metapackage. > In addition, doing such split would mean similar > requests for other filesystem directories... I'm curious what other directories you anticipate people requesting? The long-standing convention is that all the standard-ish dirs except those named "local" are managed by the distribution. > So - as a workaround - I suggest you to use rpm -U --excludepath=<path> For this to be a solution, yum would need to use it. But this option is not even exposed in rpm-python. I would have some patching to do. Yep, it sounds to be good idea to expose the --excludepath option to yum/rpm-python - it is useful for such cases. It will be great if you pursue that... As for other directories I anticipate people could request split - I had similar requests for /usr (and some of its subdirs), /home and maybe some others - as some users use them as NFS mounts - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526368 , https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696329 , https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538674 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731964 ... people use various configurations and there is no "correct" one. |